Proof of same state past.

[AirPo]

I tend to ignore posters who ask for "proof" about anything in this forum because that's a big red flag they have no clue what they are talking about. There is no "proof" in science. But then I realized the Hi Theory is not science! The different past proposition is binary. Either the past was the same state or it was different. We cannot prove one or the other, but we can falsify one. If one is wrong, the other must be right. Hence, by falsifying different sate past we indirectly prove same state past.

If the past state was different, then present state dating techniques would fail at a certain point. This is testable and falsifiable. Let the point of failure be known as the threshold, or T. If different state past is correct, present state dating techniques, psdt, will give accurate results for items younger than T. Items older than T will not be accurate. Let the magnitude of the error, me, be 100. The psdt for an item that is T + 1 years old, yo, then returns an age of T + 101. T + 2 returns T = 102, etc. This means that psdt should never return a result between T and T + mo, in other words a gap in the age of all items ever tested.

There is no such gap. Hence, there different state past is falsified, hence same stae past is proven.

Let the hand ing begin!

 

[Jimmy D]

I tend to ignore posters who ask for "proof" about anything in this forum because that's a big red flag they have no clue what they are talking about. There is no "proof" in science. But then I realized the Hi Theory is not science! The different past proposition is binary. Either the past was the same state or it was different. We cannot prove one or the other, but we can falsify one. If one is wrong, the other must be right. Hence, by falsifying different sate past we indirectly prove same state past.

If the past state was different, then present state dating techniques would fail at a certain point. This is testable and falsifiable. Let the point of failure be known as the threshold, or T. If different state past is correct, present state dating techniques, psdt, will give accurate results for items younger than T. Items older than T will not be accurate. Let the magnitude of the error, me, be 100. The psdt for an item that is T + 1 years old, yo, then returns an age of T + 101. T + 2 returns T = 102, etc. This means that psdt should never return a result between T and T + mo, in other words a gap in the age of all items ever tested.

There is no such gap. Hence, there different state past is falsified, hence same stae past is proven.

Let the hand ing begin!

Glad we've cleared that up!

 

[Petros2015]

There is no such gap. Hence, there different state past is falsified, hence same stae past is proven.
Let the hand ing begin!

Maybe... Have you ever heard of Schrödinger's Cat?

Schrödinger's cat - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_cat
If you waited 3 days to open the box, and the cat was dead, you would find a 3 day dead cat (complete with smell).

If you waited 3 days to open the box, and the cat was alive, you would find a po'd 3 day hungry cat...

The point of this is that the quantum state collapses *retroactively* once it is determined. For whatever reason, this kind of strange behavior seems to be built into our universe.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the universe was in some kind of similar 'fuzzy/indeterminate' quantum state before the first moral choice was made... that the Garden of Eden story was kind of like a Schrödinger's Box for Creation. Is Man walking with God or without in this Creation? God is the Observer...

Then the outcome is known, the quantum state collapses and you have a Universe that retroactively shows signs of one and only one state, evolutionarily based. Whereas before, *both* possibilities existed in flux. But once that moral choice is made and observed by God - BAM. Retroactive change, all the way back to the beginning.

This is just a pet theory of mine, enjoy it if it helps you. We live in a universe with quantum mechanics, so I often wonder how it fits into Creation and God theories. It does open up certain strange possibilities that might not have been there before.

The past you know need not always have been the past that was.

 

[expos4ever]

There is no such gap. Hence, there different state past is falsified, hence same stae past is proven.

Let the hand ing begin!

I assume you are taking issue with creationists who argue that "non-creationists" simply assume that the laws of physics are invariant over time, and use that assumption to compute dates of various sort (looking back into the past).

I believe there is a problem in your reasoning. You assume that there is a discrete point in time at which dating begins to fail. But this doesn't have to be the case.

While I am certainly not a creationist (in the sense that term is nominally used), the creationist could challenge you on your "threshold" assumption - they could argue that the laws of physics changed very gradually over time. If this were true, there would be no "T" and no interval {T, T+mo} - to use your terminology - to look for.

See what I mean?

 

[AirPo]

I assume you are taking issue with creationists who argue that "non-creationists" simply assume that the laws of physics are invariant over time, and use that assumption to compute dates of various sort (looking back into the past).

I believe there is a problem in your reasoning. You assume that there is a discrete point in time at which dating begins to fail. But this doesn't have to be the case.

While I am certainly not a creationist (in the sense that term is nominally used), the creationist could challenge you on your "threshold" assumption - they could argue that the laws of physics changed very gradually over time. If this were true, there would be no "T" and no interval {T, T+mo} - to use your terminology - to look for.

See what I mean?

There would still be an anomaly in the data. There is none.

 

[expos4ever]

There would still be an anomaly in the data. There is none.

Why would there be an anomaly? For the sake of illustrating my point, imagine that we consider events that occurred between 1 million and 10 million years ago. Imagine that the law of physics have slowly changed over that interval so that the "error" in estimating age gets slowly worse as we look back in time. We could end up believing an event E happened 1.5 million years when it factually occurred 10 million years ago. And we could not detect that error because the change in the laws of physics was so gradual, there would be no sudden "gap" to detect.

Consider an analogy to human aging. I am almost 60, but I cannot say that I "feel" any different than when I was 20. But, if I were magically returned to age 20 right now, I would certainly notice a dramatic difference. Because the effects of aging are so gradual, they can be missed. On the other hand, if it were the case that humans suddenly went from feeling like a 20 year to feeling like a 60 year old on their 60th birthday, the transition would be huge and impossible to miss. Your argument assumes a sudden transition in the laws of physics. You may object to my analogy arguing that, in the case of the history of the earth, the issue is not about "feelings", but about measurements. However, I suggest the same reasoning works.

 

[Petros2015]

Measurements of the age of the universe may also depend on the perspective of the measurer. Are you taking your measurement from inside the universe? Or outside? As Einstein said, 'it's all relative'. Both very high gravity and very high speed cause relativistic effects. So... at the start of things what was the gravity and what was the speed of the expansion? VERY VERY high.

Here's a Jewish physicist and Torah expert doing some hand waving about the 6 days of Genesis. I read the book he wrote 'the Science of God' years ago. I'd recommend it to anyone.

 

[AirPo]

Why would there be an anomaly? For the sake of illustrating my point, imagine that we consider events that occurred between 1 million and 10 million years ago. Imagine that the law of physics have slowly changed over that interval so that the "error" in estimating age gets slowly worse as we look back in time. We could end up believing an event E happened 1.5 million years when it factually occurred 10 million years ago. And we could not detect that error because the change in the laws of physics was so gradual, there would be no sudden "gap" to detect.

Consider an analogy to human aging. I am almost 60, but I cannot say that I "feel" any different than when I was 20. But, if I were magically returned to age 20 right now, I would certainly notice a dramatic difference. Because the effects of aging are so gradual, they can be missed. On the other hand, if it were the case that humans suddenly went from feeling like a 20 year to feeling like a 60 year old on their 60th birthday, the transition would be huge and impossible to miss. Your argument assumes a sudden transition in the laws of physics. You may object to my analogy arguing that, in the case of the history of the earth, the issue is not about "feelings", but about measurements. However, I suggest the same reasoning works.

Because when we hit the threshold, there would be a change in the data. A gap if the change was all at once, a different trend if the change was slow.

Using your human analogy, we measure age by years. If we measured by how people felt, we have data that does not make sense. If you felt 20, but your child felt 30, we'd have impossible results, hence the model is wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

Measurements of the age of the universe may also depend on the perspective of the measurer.

...

Here's a Jewish physicist and Torah expert doing some hand waving about the 6 days of Genesis.

Petros, if six days on the earth comes out to billions of years of dilated time, who is doing the measuring?

If Adam (or Moses) wrote "six days," from whose perspective was it "billions of years"?

In the video, a girl living in real time leaves the earth for three minutes, then comes back and sees that two years has elapsed.

Who left the earth for six days, then came back and recorded billions of years?

No one.

In fact, it's just the opposite.

Someone (who?) came here to earth, recorded six days, then went back (to where?) and noticed billions of years had passed?

Furthermore, how did Adam live 930 years on the earth, when just six days is 13.7 billion years universal time?

 

[expos4ever]

Because when we hit the threshold, there would be a change in the data. A gap if the change was all at once, a different trend if the change was slow.

I agree with the gap argument (if the change was sudden), but I do not see how you would be able to make a case against a slow change in the laws of physics. In other words, please explain how a "different trend" would be manifest if the change was slow.

Using your human analogy, we measure age by years. If we measured by how people felt, we have data that does not make sense. If you felt 20, but your child felt 30, we'd have impossible results, hence the model is wrong.

I agree, and I think I understand your general idea. However, I am skeptical that you would have access to the kind of data you would need to dismiss the possibility that the laws of nature had changed slowly. In other words, while I agree that a child who felt 30 while the parent felt 20 would make your case in the setting of my analogy, I am not sure you can point to something in the "history of the world" setting that would do the same thing.

 

[expos4ever]

Measurements of the age of the universe may also depend on the perspective of the measurer. Are you taking your measurement from inside the universe? Or outside? As Einstein said, 'it's all relative'. Both very high gravity and very high speed cause relativistic effects. So... at the start of things what was the gravity and what was the speed of the expansion? VERY VERY high.

Agreed, but surely you are not suggesting that the thousands of experts who agree on the 14 billion year figure are not aware of this and would not have accounted for it in their calculations.

 

[AirPo]

I agree with the gap argument (if the change was sudden), but I do not see how you would be able to make a case against a slow change in the laws of physics. In other words, please explain how a "different trend" would be manifest if the change was slow.


I agree, and I think I understand your general idea. However, I am skeptical that you would have access to the kind of data you would need to dismiss the possibility that the laws of nature had changed slowly. In other words, while I agree that a child who felt 30 while the parent felt 20 would make your case in the setting of my analogy, I am not sure you can point to something in the "history of the world" setting that would do the same thing.

Instead of a gap, it would be a dip.

 

[Petros2015]

Petros, if six days on the earth comes out to billions of years of dilated time, who is doing the measuring?

Not 6 days on the earth, 6 24 hour periods. From an outside observer (give you 3 guesses who).
It's been about 15 years since I read the book, but that video clip was 1 of like 8.

Essentially, as the universe expands and gets bigger, every time it doubles in size, the perception of time for those inside halves relative to someone outside. Let's say I was outside the universe with a stopwatch, and you were inside on planet earth with a stopwatch and we both started out clocks and agreed to stop them when the universe had doubled in size.

By my clock, one hour later the universe has doubled in size. I say 'the universe is one hour old'.
By your clock, 2 hours later the universe has doubled in size. You say 'the universe is 2 hours old'.

Similar thing with the Bible is going on here. God says in Genesis He creates the universe in a timeframe of 6 24 hour periods. Scientists say, no this things is at least 15 billion years old!

Who is right?

They both are.

This assumes that you accept or want to accept concepts like an expanding universe (which would have been expanding VERY VERY fast at the start of the Big Bang compared to its expansion now), relativity, biblical accounts and nuclear physicists. They don't HAVE to be at odds.

I find it rather beautiful.

 

[expos4ever]

Instead of a gap, it would be a dip.

I think you need to defend this a little more robustly. What do you mean by a "dip"? Please explain specifically how the possibility of slow change in the laws of physics is not a legitimate possibility - give us an example of an observation that we know rules this out.

 

[AV1611VET]

I find it rather beautiful.

How does Mr. Schroeder account for the order of the creation events, as depicted in Genesis 1?

 

[Petros2015]

In the book, very nicely as I recall. He is Jewish, the Genesis scripture is sacred to him. Moreover, he is working from it in the original language, with commentary on the meaning of the words.

It's available on Amazon.

 

[dad]

If the past state was different, then present state dating techniques would fail at a certain point.

The techniques are nothing more than interpreting isotopes as having all resulted from this state!!

This is testable and falsifiable. Let the point of failure be known as the threshold, or T.

You have NO idea where or when T was. You seem to think that T would mean no isotopes? Be clear.

If different state past is correct, present state dating techniques, psdt, will give accurate results for items younger than T.

Nope we can't even give you that, The dates are correlated using tree rings and such. In the different past, trees grew fast, and corals and all things used have no value for dates at all, since all so called dates are based on the present nature.

Items older than T will not be accurate.

True, but you have no way of knowing when that was. I do.

 

[Strathos]

True, but you have no way of knowing when that was. I do.

So let's use your date then. I'm sure there are radiometric dating records for objects both before and after that point.

 

[AirPo]

The techniques are nothing more than interpreting isotopes as having all resulted from this state!!
You have NO idea where or when T was. You seem to think that T would mean no isotopes? Be clear.

It works for any value of T. That's why it's T is a variable. In addition, T is your baby, not mine.

Nope we can't even give you that, The dates are correlated using tree rings and such.

Nope, then you are correct? Not a very good debating technique

In the different past, trees grew fast, and corals and all things used have no value for dates at all, since all so called dates are based on the present nature.


True, but you have no way of knowing when that was. I do.

Again, it does not matter when T is. If it is valid, it would show up in the data. It does not. Therefore T defeated. HI Theory defeated! Different state past defeated!! dad defeated!!!

AirPo wins!
AirPo wins!
AirPo wins!

And the crowd is going crazy ...

AirPo wins!

 

[expos4ever]

AirPo wins!
AirPo wins!
AirPo wins!

And the crowd is going crazy ...

AirPo wins!

Not until you address post 14.